Forum:Guitar series:Merging series and models pages
For guitar series only containing one model it might be wise to combine the series and model page. The current procedure is to make a redirect on the series page to the model page and add all the information over there. For an example, check K7 series and K7. If a series has only a few models (like two) with one being the 'main model', it's also possible/ok to merge the pages (for example John Petrucci series and JPM100). Series and models that can be merged (Stroked ones are already done) *Ballback series and 580B (include a link to 580T) *Daron Malakian Model series and DMM1 *E-Gen series and EGEN18 (will be reverted for 2010)... *J. series and ICJ100WZ *John Petrucci series and JPM100 (with a link to JPM90HAM) *K7 series and K7 *Mike Mushok Model series and MMM1 *Omar Rodriguez-Lopez Model series and ORM1 (with a link to ORM1L) *Sam Totman series and STM1 *Turbot series and 580T (include a link to 580B) *Vinnie Moore series and VM1 *V-Blade series and VBT700 (and additional information on X series page) BramTalk! 10:12, November 8, 2009 (UTC) :Updated --''Bram'Talk!'' 15:16, January 7, 2010 (UTC) :Updated --''BramTalk! 22:25, January 17, 2010 (UTC) :As far as this list goes, this project is completed. The Ballback series and Turbot series pages actually link to Roadstar Pro series now. Future single model series should get the same treatment. 'BramTalk! 18:07, December 15, 2010 (UTC) ::I've been taking another look at this, and it appears some of these series have perhaps since been recreated. In my opinion this leads to a glut of really small "series". In fact, to be considered a "series", I would set the bar at more like five unique models. I would propose that the signature models for any artist who has fewer than five models would belong only in the Category:Signature models. This would leave Vai's JEM series (and Universe series), the Joe Satriani series and perhaps a few more, e.g. Paul Gilbert series (on a tangent that " Model series" naming convention really grates on me — wouldn't " series" make more sense?). As it is, the approach we've taken leads to lots of fragmentation, which can be seen most starkly on the Portal:Guitar series page. ::Anyone agree or disagree with that sort of approach? \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 17:14, May 5, 2016 (UTC) :::Removing "Model" from " Model series" sounds ok to me. :::About signatures we have two different naming, either the artist name, or his guitar's name. So we have "Joe Satriani" and folks on the one hand, but "K7" "APEX" "KONRADthing" on the other hand (instead of a simple and unique "Korn"). I would feel more comfortable with " series" only, no more "E-Gen series" (becomes Herman Li series) or "FRM series" (belongs to Paul Gilbert series), for example. --KainTGC (talk) 23:39, May 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::I agree with you that some simplification is in order in the naming structure of the Signatures. I'm not really sure what the best answer is, though, since much of the confusion stems from the names Ibanez gives the various models. For example, I'm not sure it's universally known that the "EGEN" ("E-gen"?) models are associated with Herman Li, so if we simply name the category "Herman Li models" that might not mean anything to some users. Avoiding or at least minimizing this sort of confusion is what's behind my proposal to simply eliminate categories for signature series that contain fewer than some number (5?) of models. All of these models would simply be thrown into the catch-all Category:Signature models and we could eliminate all these tiny little confusing categories. ::::A somewhat related issue has to do with using the moniker "series" to mean more than one thing – it can refer to the body-style of a guitar (e.g. RG series) but it's also used to refer to the production grade (line?) such as Prestige series so that a single guitar ends up in multiple "series". In my perfect world we would use distinct terms for these different concepts. Series would refer only to a guitar's shape or body style, while some other term (Grade, Line, Label ???) could refer to the sort of quality identifier (e.g. J-Custom line, Prestige Uppercut line, Prestige line, Premium line, Iron Label line, GIO line, etc.). ::::Once again, Ibanez themselves are complicit in fostering this confusion as they seem to use the term "series" for everything. But if we're trying to create a cogent taxonomy of guitar models, using the same term causes confusion (for me, at least). Of course, once you add in the Signature model and all the different series that come along with that, not to mention the concept of "subseries" (should the RGA series be classified as a subseries of the RG series?, etc.) the whole endeavor just becomes too confusing to even contemplate. This is also tied up in the topic of how best to approach site navigation (see Forum:Navigation between Category/Series/Portal). Whenever I start thinking about this too deeply, I usually find myself walking away from my computer to pick up a guitar or grab a beer. ;) If anyone has any thoughts on how to approach a simplified Universal Taxonomy of Ibanez Guitars I'd love to hear them. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 16:29, May 6, 2016 (UTC) :::::Ahah your last line made me smile, my head hurts as well :D :::::I agree with you 100%, all along the line. Well, maybe not about signatures (I think that "Herman Li series" speaks more than "EgEn series". You may not be found of the guy (me neither) but endorsed artists are quite popular, famous and their guitars as well among ibanez enthusiasts. At least we agree that simplification among the signature models is a way to go (in the near-or-not future). :::::I like "XX Line" a lot, concerning Prestige/Uppercut/Iron etc. And the idea to differentiate series/lines sounds *really* ok to me. :::::It pisses me off to add "RG series" all the time when we speak of an RGD or RGA model, same with "S series" for every S/SA/SV/S-something. The "sub-series" used to be a fork of the historical RG and S series back in the days, but now they make their life on their own, and it adds even more categories, thus more confusion. Not to speak about Series/Portal/Categories, that's another story :) :::::Now if you want some peace of mind, just think that 99.99% of the users land here because they google'd something about Ibanez. Once they are here, (I guess) they don't even try to navigate all along this site because the "hierarchy" of information is a maze of non-sense. So no need to think too hard about it ;) :::::Both of us are the only ones talking about what we like or not on this wiki. To all people reading this, feedback plz, tell us want you prefer. --KainTGC (talk) 17:33, May 6, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Once again I agree (almost) 100% with you. Particularly w/r/t subseries — I've come around to the realization that whole concept doesn't really work very well any more (if it ever did). Yes the various RG* or S* models share the same basic body shape, but they've really grown into being separate series of their own. It just adds to the confusion when you treat the "RG series" as a series which contains guitars on its own (which it is), but ALSO as a sort of "parent" series for the RGA/RGD/RDR series. It just makes everything too messy. ::::::I would propose that we drop the "subseries" nomenclature for the well-established (RGA, RGD, SA, etc.) series. But then we get to the whole X/Xiphos/Gliave/Destroyer/Iceman hierarchy which is a whole OTHER ball of wax which is even messier. It seems that Ibanez' approach over the last several years is just to dump that whole mess under the "X series" label. I sort of like that tack (especially since it addresses the issue of excessive series fragmentation I'd love to get away from), though I could see that there might be some disagreement there given the breadth of body styles that the X category would encompass. If a truly elegant approach to this issue exists, I'm not sure what it is. ::::::Also, I get your point that the artist signature models drive interest in the brand, but I still don't understand the utility of a category that consist of just 2 or 3 models. The Category:E-Gen models is a particularly apt example, since it contains only the EGEN18 and the EGEN8. The pages for each of these models already link to the other, so I'm not really sure what navigational value having them in their own category adds for a user. Even if they were both simply in the larger Category:Signature models the naming structure ensures that they'll be presented together in any alphabetical list. In theory the Portal:Signature series would contain individual sections for each artist. ::::::It would sure be nice to come up with some sort of organizational framework that we agree on before we try to move forward to address the site navigation questions. To that end a more diverse range of opinions would sure be helpful. Maybe User:Noneof yourbusiness48 has some ideas? Although I suspect that her vote will be to stick with the status quo. Perhaps another blog post is in order to lend a bit more visibility to these discussions. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 18:12, May 6, 2016 (UTC) I'm glad to get rid of the "subseries" concept regarding the RGA/RGD/SA/series. The X series is a case apart that is true. I'm thinking of the Category:Glaive models which gathers only a very few models inside, but, ironically, the Slipknot signature model is part of it and I like this kind of connection. Ibanez themselves may not know how to handle the "fragmentation" you're talking about, it's hard to keep consistency among these very specific, yet very small series. I have no answer, sorry. Maybe here we can make an exception, keeping both the "X series" and "Medieval Weapon of Mass Destruction series"? I don't like exceptions (as it is hard to keep track of everything) but again, I don't know how to handle this properly. I would be glad to hear User:Noneof yourbusiness48 (and many other users) point of view. Now that I think about it, do you see how using this forum is uneasy for ppl that are not acquainted with the wiki-style editing? (btw thanks for the Outdent trick, I just used it)! I have nothing again this forum but if we could simply press a "log in" button with a "reply" button and a "quote" button, like 99% of the forums in the world, it would make communication WAY easier to many people. I think. --KainTGC (talk) 00:15, May 7, 2016 (UTC) :Okay, I think it's agreed that we should desist in trying to consider most of the well-established series (e.g. RGA, RGD, SA, SV, ART, ARZ, etc.) as sub-series of other series (e.g. S, RG or Artist). The subseries concept may retain some value for organizing the X series models (Xiphos, Glaive, Halberd, Iceman, etc.) :As far as the MTM10 being a member of the Glaive series (to think of one example), I think it makes sense to consider it that way in terms of this wiki. If someone is interested in the Glaive body style, they may also be interested in the MTM10, even if it's not designated (by Ibanez) as a "true" member of that series. I think these MTM models are the only ones which have been updated to include the body style series category, but the same sort of thing could be extended to the Paul Stanley series (Iceman) and probably most other Signature models. :I see that you're not buying my "let's get rid of the tiny signature series categories" argument, so what about instead making ALL of the signature series categories, essentially sub-categories of Category:Signature models? This would achieve my goal of streamlining the top-level category hierarchy while retaining the individual categories for each artist's models. :I agree that the Wikia forum implementation is not very inviting, particularly for those who aren't already comfortable with wiki editing. However, I'm not sure what other solutions we have. Are you aware of any other Wikia sites with simpler forums? \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 23:14, May 9, 2016 (UTC) ::100% ok to drop the series/sub-series connection, and nice move with the MTM10 being a Signature/X/Glaive at the same time. Maybe yes we can try to add the same kind of connection with Paul Stanley and his Iceman, or Paul Gilbert and his reverse-headstock Iceman (ahah but this one is tricky, a reverse-headstock Iceman is not a true Iceman, so I don't know). ::About the small divergence regarding Signatures category, well I don't understand exactly where you want to go with it. But I trust you, if you want to manage these "little categories" a much better way, go for it. My initial idea was simply to replace the guitar series used so far by the true artist name. Like "James Munky Shaffer models", instead of having K7+APEX+the current one, or "Maik Weichert models" instead of a vague "MWM10". Using a few redirects would do most of the job here. But honestly, it's not a priority (even more if it's controversial). ::About the forum, why not using an external, free-service forum? Like Proboards or Lefora (I know nothing about them but they come first with a google.com "free forum" search). Just a suggestion to encourage people to participate more in the discussion, especially those who have no editing skill. --KainTGC (talk) 00:31, May 10, 2016 (UTC) :::Sorry for the double post, I've read twice (with a fresh mind) your conclusion about the Signatures management: first let's start from the very beginning, the Category:Guitar_series. Here we have a subcategory called Category:Signature series‎ (27 pages). Then the main category which contains 76 pages, including the aforementioned Signatures. My idea here is to make sure these signatures don't appear twice, both in their respective subcategory and in the main one, but in the subcategory only. :::On a side-note, like you evoked before, maybe it's time to create a new "Product-Lines-or-something" category, designed for the GIO/GRX/RX, the J.Custom, USA Custom, Iron Label, Uppercut, Prestige, Premium, etc. In the end, having these 2 subcategories (Signatures and Product lines) would make the main category more logical (and shorter), only filled with the main series RG, RGA, RGD, S, SA etc. :::Is it a lot of work? Not at all, that's the good news. We don't even have to modify every single guitar page, just the categories/subcategories themselves. Now about the very small series, they would fit perfectly in the Signatures (sub)series -not appearing in the main category anymore, like all other signatures. Doesn't it solve the problem or do you see something else? --KainTGC (talk) 14:43, May 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::What you described (removing Signature categories from the top-level Category:Guitar series categories) is basically what I had in mind. I just didn't explain it too clearly. I've gone ahead and done that so that the top-level categories contains the "true" series while all the Signature categories are under the Category:Signature series. I did a similar thing as well with the Category:X series. I think it definitely clears up some of the clutter. ::::I also created a new Category:Premium, custom and entry-level lines (not in love with the name, but it was the best I could come up with) which as the name implies contains the Prestige, J Custom, GIO, etc. In essence that category contains all of the "lines" (as opposed to calling these "series") which are based essentially on quality or workmanship. ::::I also started getting rid of the annoying " Models series" designation, and begun replacing them with the simpler " series" naming convention. Unfortunately, that ends up taking quite a bit of effort to get everything (links, categories, portals, etc.) switched around. I'll keep plugging away at it. ::::And finally, just for you I created a Herman Li series which redirects to E-Gen series. Perhaps that's a simple way to achieve what you're looking for there? \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 18:35, May 10, 2016 (UTC) :::::The next step is to tackle the Category:Guitar models with a similar approach. I suspect that one might be a bit trickier. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 18:43, May 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Perfect! The Category:Guitar series now looks much, much better! I also agree to get rid of the "model" firstname/lastname (lol). Now the Category:Guitar models: we talked about it yesterday, it's really confusing (to the users) and annoying (to us) to have both the Category:Series and Category:Models. One day we will have to do something about them. When I think about it, to apprehend it this time it's better to start not from "the top" = the categories but from "the bottom" = the guitar pages: every one of them have (a lot) of categories listed below them, and it's always "Guitar models", "RG models", "7-string models" etc. To put it differently, one can say the Category:Models is more "legit" than the Category:Series. Well, I know that we have to merge them one way or another, but I'm sure of nothing. Great discussion incoming. --KainTGC (talk) 20:01, May 10, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Yes, cleaning up the "models" hierarchy is going to require touching a LOT of pages. However, perhaps there is some way that we can leverage the template to simplify this somewhat. Again, I'm not all the way there yet, but what I have in mind is leveraging the existing series, subseries parameters to create many of those categories automatically (similar to what was done for the "Guitars by country" categorization effort). This same thing could be extended to the "guitars by pickup configuration" categories as well. Doing this would still require touching basically every guitar model page, but at least it would make new page creation and maintenance simpler. :::::::For now, I'll leave that as yet another task on the list. Still trying to finish up 2013 models — nearly done with the "back half" of the catalogs. And I also want to clean up those stupid "Joe Blow Models models" pages and categories. The fun just never stops. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 20:46, May 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::I'm on your side with the 2013/14/15/etc. The signatures series now look fresh with images for every one of them (and a few information update here or there), the "main series" will wait a bit longer but I really want to add all the models that are still missing. ::::::::Not sure about adding more and more categories, even using a trick like "country of manufacture". There is no way to make a search across several categories at the same time (RG series + Fixed bridge series + 7-string series + left-handed series = win). A wiki will not magically become a database, even if we close our eyes and make a wish :D What we need is something (like a bot) capable of reading inside the whole wiki speclists, to sort out the arguments we are asking for. But I have no clue how it works. --KainTGC (talk) 21:38, May 10, 2016 (UTC) I'm not really talking about creating new categories, just automating the ones we already have. If we're going to have to touch every page to fix the "Guitar models" structure, then we might as well simplify things at the same time. We could easily get rid of having to manually add the various series categories as well as the pickup configuration categories. That would simplify page creation and maintenance to some extent. Managing all the various year categories would be a bit trickier, not to say it couldn't be done. I appreciate your cleanup efforts on the Signature pages. This wiki's almost starting to look like its not abandoned anymore. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 21:50, May 10, 2016 (UTC) :I apologize that I never really responded to your ideas to simplify the forums through the use of some external forum that would be simpler and make conversations simpler (e.g. so that I could quote the relevant snippet of your earlier conversation to which I am replying here). I don't necessarily have anything against that approach, but I'm not totally sure I know what you have in mind. Are you envisioning a self-contained external site that we would link to as an "Ibanez Wiki" forum? If so, that seems like just one more thing to administer. Or is there a way to integrate a third-party forum into the site itself? :I guess what it comes down to for me is that in the end, this is a wiki, and as such those who wish to participate in the discussion should at least have some small degree of wiki-literacy. We've already got one sister site that is already dying on the vine. However, as I glance at that site, perhaps we can steal some of it's simplicity and integrate it into this site. I like the idea of having a simple text box where a user can type in a question. :Anyway, sorry for my stream of consciousness rambling. I appreciate your recent efforts to clean up and enhance the Parts content. Yet another place where there's still lots of work to be done. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 21:32, May 11, 2016 (UTC) ::It's my fault, I double/triple post and it's already difficult enough to follow a conversation here -thus the idea of using a completely external, independent (and free) forum. But it raises the idea of deploying an admin, a troupe of moderators and the usual crap about spam/vandals. It's also true that only those who have some minimal wiki-knowledge are worth posting here, #IareElite, at least we are not overwhelmed by social networks, stoopid requests and things. Oh and the sister site, 1st time it see it! Did you plant a flag to make this newly discovered territory yours? I would. --KainTGC (talk) 23:13, May 11, 2016 (UTC) :::I'm not sure I want the Ibanez Answers site. I'll maybe let someone else inherit that one. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 16:48, May 12, 2016 (UTC)